Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the united nations, we're going to put foreign policy in the context of course the upcoming election. we'll talk iran and the new dynamics of the middle east with p.j. crowley former assistant secretary of state. and then we're only a little over a week before the first presidential debate so tonight in "the war room," we're going to do some debate prep with republican strategist mark mckinnon and democratic campaign veteran fowler. it will be a great hour for the political junkies out there right here in "the war room." you gotta tune in. >> eliot: we'll beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. >> eliot: when the only apparent consistency is the does not, well documented well representation of facts, you have a problem which is why mittt romney is shrinking. over the course of this campaign, he's dproan smaller. he and those arou
." president obama tells world leaders at the united nations they must join the fight against the violent extremism that claimed the lives of four americans in libya while mitt romney outlines his plans to marry free enterprise to foreign aid at the clinton global initiative. paul ryan finds an employee's union he can actually support. starting with the president. after the death of chris stevens. the anti-muslim video that provoked the protests while defending the right to free speech. >> obama: americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views. even views we profoundly disagree with. and on this, we must agree there is no speech that justifies mindless violence. there are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. there's no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. >> eliot: the president warned iran that while it still had time to demonstrate its nuclear program was peaceful, that time was not unlimited. >> obama: make no mistake a nuclear armed iran is
: as world leaders descend upon the united nations this week for the annual meeting of the assembly plenty of voices will be heard, including the president of iran. while the topics will cover a brood spectrum the focus will be on the continuing violence in the middle east and now africa. using a perceived attack on the koran by a private voice as a pretext to incite anger, usually causing damage of some sort and in the most recent incident leading to a tragic and devastating loss of life. one of the tough questions that follows is how should we respond? we should be clear understanding that these attacks are the price we pay for believing in free speech. we are used to dismissing as cranks and crazies, those two feel compelled to elevate their own views by speaking in venomous terms about others. yet in parts of the world where free speech has not become part of the social fabric, free speech can be used to incite. it is often the intent of those causing the riot the tough restrictions on speech be imposed, the very violence they cause being the argument they can use
is the most powerful number in the nation. five votes on the supreme court can pick a president recall bush v. gore. redefine our constitutional rights, think citizens united, and determine the constitutionality of a statute. think of the healthcare act of last june. maybe this is good news because the court over the past few years has proven to be the last refuges of decision making as congress and executive branches have proven themselves too often mired in gridlock and avoidance behavior that typify so many institutions. on the other hand the old mythology that the supreme court can depend upon a neutral analyst of legal principles to resolve these tough issues is more and more suspect. the court itself has been mired in ideological and partisan bickering. witness the acid tone of the four conservative justices in their dissent in the healthcare case. this partisanship and what i view to be the intellectual gamesmanship of those who erect false interpretive facades to justify the outcome oriented reasoning, detracts from the historic role of our final and most august deliberative body. the
solve the problem? and so far most senior national intelligence officials in the united states and former officials say no. the cure would be worse than the problem. it would make the situation worse. it would start a third war in the middle east. the consequences could be catastrophic for the region, for the global economy and it might actually accelerate the iranian program, not stop it. >> eliot: does that mean we have passed the point of no return because we've made a decision that the military action will not succeed and therefore if they would make the decision they want the bomb, what do we do? >> you better be darn sure these guys are making a bomb before you go to the military solution. you don't do it on a hunch or sketchy intelligence. you know, you have to be sure that they are going and that, therefore, it is worth starting a third regional war that would make iraq and afghanistan look like a warm-up act. >> eliot: other than military action, sanctions are the primary vehicle we're using primary mecha
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)